Dred Scott v. Sanford is widely held as one of the most odious Supreme Court decisions in our nation's history.  Basically, the Court decided that a slave was not set free if he was transported from a state where slavery was legal to a state where it was illegal, because setting the slave free would deprive the slaveowner of property, the slave.

How does the apply to the right to keep and bear arms?  To the best of my knowledge, Dred Scott was never overturned-the 13th Amendment made it's underlying issue-slavery-moot by outlawing slavery.  However, right now, various states have different laws prohibiting various types of firearms, just was states had differing laws on slavery.  Machineguns are legal in Idaho, but not in neighboring Washington.  'Assault weapons' are legal in most states, but not in New York, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey.  Pistols can be bought with no permit in Virginia, but require an extremely difficult to obtain permit in New York City.

So, could a gunowner moving from say, Nevada, to California, challenge California's 'assault weapon' ban on the basis that it deprives him of his legally owned property?  Based on the reasoning of the Dred Scott case, I would say yes.